This all looks great! The field I would possibly add is the lowest height of trunk division (associated with number of trunks). I typically include this in my comments field, but it might be a consideration for its own field. Of course that gets into the whole issue of multi-trunks, and would need to be a judgement call, but so is number of trunks. I note it down whenever it potentially affects the circumference - sometimes even if it is 10 feet up or more.

I like that idea. I like it a lot. Anyone else have thoughts on the matter? In absence of objection, the field will be added when the final record layout goes in on Friday. Thanks Darian.

I hope you don't mind, but I gave your name to Joli McCathran who functions presently as an assistant to Maryland's champion tree coordinator, and will become the state coordinator when the present person retires. Joli is great. She is a member of the National Cadre and she just joined the NTS BBS. I explained to her your role in NTS and your contribution to our data on Maryland's bib and/or tall trees.

Ooooh, hold on, message coming through from American Forests with respect to the Cadre.

Uncle AF wants you!

Wow, that was intense.

Bob

Robert T. LeverettCo-founder and Executive DirectorNative Native Tree SocietyCo-founder and PresidentFriends of Mohawk Trail State Forest

Thanks. We currently have 16 members, including you, who have signaled their interest in sharing data with VA Tech as part of an evolving NTS-VA Tech partnership.Some have given notification in the National Cadre Forum. Lots of members to go, but there aren't any deadlines. Each person must make his/her own decision about joining up, but I would respectfully point out to those who haven't signed on that although we are the gold standard and that our data counters misinformation about tree dimensions, we need a source with high academic standing to champion our cause. VA Tech is not our only outlet. Harvard University's Harvard Forest Research facility may provide a second outlet. We would have to insure against any conflicts. I'll see Dr. David Foster on Jan 31st at an engagement where he speaks. I might be able to talk to him for a few minutes. However, VA Tech has first call because they enthusiastically stepped up to the plate and their database reached a far wider audience.

Bob

Robert T. LeverettCo-founder and Executive DirectorNative Native Tree SocietyCo-founder and PresidentFriends of Mohawk Trail State Forest

I concur with Tyler and am happy to share data, and especially for the cause of promoting accurate maximum dimension information.

For anyone that may be concerned about the potential time commitment of data entry I would encourage them to at least get a sign in and then see how it goes by entering a few of their own species maximums. If time permits then some of the less superlative trees could always be added later on if desired.

Thanks, and to add to your point, for those who have Excel spreadsheets with data, I can help convert them to the standard format. just completed converting Dale Luthringer's 423 white pine measurements from his format to the standard. Matt, I expect you can help other members too - at least giving them tips. I'm not trying to volunteer your time, just recognizing your Excel expertise.

Ents,

I'll share some conversion methods as time goes on with you all. The standard template worksheet automatically generates the record key, so other than setting the first one, you don't have to type them in. One sticky situation in conversions is lat and long. As we all know, there are several ways to express these coordinates. The standard format is decimal degrees. So, other formats have to be converted to the standard. If anyone has lat and ling in a different format, I can help then make the conversion. You should not have to retype them.

As time goes on, I'll share conversion techniques. Above all, you shouldn't have to retype entries. But if you just don't feel like tackling a conversion, I'll do it for you. I intend to complete conversions for ale and then I'll do Larry's. Or you can wait until the NTS-VA Tech website is up and just enter records one at a time, choosing the most important one first as Matt recommends.

Bob

Robert T. LeverettCo-founder and Executive DirectorNative Native Tree SocietyCo-founder and PresidentFriends of Mohawk Trail State Forest

While I do have specific gps coordinates for a small number of my records the majority just use a pin dropped in the middle of the site (or subsite) on the map- I assume those differences in precision are accounted for in field 15? If there are any good resources on how to reasonably assess the PDOP and list it when entering data, it would be useful.

From there comes another question- for many of my records I have species, site/subsite, and height alone or less often height+cbh. Obviously these measurements represent a record of what was there at the time but are not particularly repeatable- I could not go back to the same site and reliably pick out the same trees to measure again except for memorable specimens or at small sites. In the future I'd like to start geotagging each tree measured but in the meantime, this data I assume would still be valuable to a researcher wanting to examine, say, height across a species' range. I have hundreds as such readily converted to submit, but it's very possible that in the future the same trees might be remeasured and submitted under another unique index, with no way of knowing that both records represented the same tree. I'm honestly not sure that it matters for most applications of the resulting database and it's probably a minor concern relative to the value of building a robust dataset, but I figured I should put it on the table in case anyone else has thoughts or there's something I'm missing here.

We might also want to define site vs. subsite. I see in one of your sample spreadsheets that Site Name is listed as a town, with the forest itself as a subsite, for example "Town of Cunningham" and "Bryant Woods." In my own record keeping I've been inclined for example to list trees from Leolyn Grove in Lilydale, NY as just "Leolyn Grove" for the site. This would be brought in line with your provided example by changing the site to "Town of Pomfret" and subsite to "Leolyn Grove," with the ownership listed as "Lilydale Assembly." This is easy to do and seems like a logical convention.

With reference to GPS accuracy measures (PDOP is a bit convoluted, has to do with the positioning and number of satellites at the time of 'capture'...Positional Dilution of Precision and is usually measured in meters; and CEP is Circular Error Probability or "...the radius of a circle in which 50% of the values occur", and is usually measured in feet).

If you're likely to be adopting the new format for the future, you also may want to consider reconfiguring your GPS for outputting your coordinates in Decimal Degrees (some output their coordinates in Degrees, Minutes, Seconds), if it doesn't matter to you (it's a bit of a tiresome conversion for us if there are many entries).

With regard to your "pinning" the location, perhaps orienting your 'map' to Google Earth and 'photo-interpreting' your pinning position might approximate their locations enough...you'd want to state this method of approximation in the Comments field.